WN1000RP vs WN3000RP

I doubt you're going to see much of an improvement in range and as for performance - well - if performance is an issue, extenders should not even be considered. Let me explain ... WiFi is what we call half duplex - it can receive and it can transmit, but not at the same time - for a wireless extender to work, it must first receive the data, and then switch modes, and re-transmit the data - ignoring the switching times for convenience, you can see that just adding an extender will reduce throughput by at least 50%. Now - let's put this in proper perspective... Let's say you have cable internet, good for 15 mb/s down - your extender will reduce that to 7.5 mb/s - you're taking quite a hit to achieve that additional range. What do you use your network for - if you're into media streaming, between devices on the local LAN, moving to an N300 potentially offers double the performance (that you're getting now), but, if, like many people, you're just surfing, in which case the internet connection is the limiting factor - you're unlikely to notice the change.

Thank you, that is what I had suspected, the limiting factor is the speed from Telstra, which of course is woeful at 6.5mbps and whether it is N150 or N300 makes little difference when it just being used to surf the internet, Roll on the NBN. Not using for media streaming but interesting to know that between devices on the LAN is where the difference is seen.

I knew that extenders halved the speed, but I thought that the N300 might extend the range and push the signal further. The N150 works ok, but still has trouble reaching all spots in rear family room from router at front of house.

The difference between the N150 & the N300 is probably the number of "streams" - wireless-n uses multiple "spatially separated" streams, up to I believe a maximum of four, it's theoretically possible that with two streams traversing slightly different paths you could see better coverage, but I wouldn't bet on it. The range issue is, so to speak, one affected by "the laws of physics" - the attenuation of the signal by distance and the materials used in the construction of your home - if you want to see an improvement there, find a way to reduce the distance - for example - relocate the router to a more central position - or - if you willing to spend the money, install a wireless access point, and cable it back to the router. The problem with wireless routers is that they are designed for convenience, so you have a router, a switch and a wireless access point, which ends up being located in a corner, convenient for the cable runs, but less than optimal for wireless coverage - the way around this is to use a wired router which can sit in the corner, with a wireless access point that can be optimally located - which is how I have done it - one single ¼" Ethernet cable runs to the access point, and provides both power (PoE) and data.

ADSL2+ broadband comes from the phoneline to a Thomson Speedtouch 530 modem connected to the main desktop and DLink DIR-655 router, so I am unable to move the router anywhere else, so it looks like there isn't room for improvement as restricted by cable connections.

My internet is ADSL through a Paradyne modem, into a Netgear FVS318N (which has it's WiFi disabled) and from there to a centrally located Linksys wireless-g access point - there is ALWAYS a way, provided you're willing to do what it takes. Yes - I have a wireless-n router with the wireless-n disabled, and use a wireless-g access point instead - the wireless-g is more than capable of delivering the goods, and because of it's optimal location, provides a more reliable signal & better performance than the wireless-n router. If/when the wireless-g access point fails, I'll replace it with a wireless-n one - that's how I got the wireless-g unit, when it's wireless-b predecessor failed - sure it's nice to have the latest greatest, but what benefit does it really provide? Why did I buy an FVS318N? Because it has a VLAN capable switch.